NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10674


Yeah, I know, this is nothing new. Politicians break their promises all the time. But since many people - either naively or through blind ignorance - believed electing the Democrats would bring change, it's worth mentioning that their lack of foresight is, at best, tragic, at worst, catastrophic.

Bit late on this, huh? I think Corny made the same thread a week or two ago. I wasn't impressed with his argument, and I'm not impressed with Raimondo's.

It's simple--Bush doesn't have authority to do more than limited strikes without coming for other authorization, because the AUMF doesn't give it to him. There's even an argument to be made that trying the "no Iran" legislation would give Bush legitimacy to strike Iran if the legislation failed--after all, why would they seek to limit authority he doesn't have?

This goes to show that voting for a party is stupid. One should vote based on personal beliefs.

This goes to show that voting for a party is stupid. One should vote based on personal beliefs.One should vote based on personal reasoning.

Too bad we have forgotten the Politician Lie Detector. How can you tell when a politician is lying? When their lips move.

Nothing makes me angrier than people voting for the party, instead of voting for what would be best for the country. At least here in the US, neither the Republican nor the Democratic party really gives a flying f***k at a rolling donut going down hill about the voters.

"We are going to make sure that the rich pay their fair share of the tax", "All these tax breaks are only a break for the rich" blah blah blah. I don't know about your country, but here in the US almost all the senators and representatives are rich. Funny how they pass the taxes to punish the rich, but my taxes as a public servant go up!!! Just to run for the US Senate will cost an average of 10-20 million dollars, and to be a Congressman will cost about 1-5 million. So much for representing the people. All of those liars in the Congress are nothing but traitorous bastards.

Of course, I have yet to receive a reply from my elected Senator or Congressman to any of my letters. Guess that I am not worth the time, since I am not a 1k plus donor.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain, quoted in A.B. Paine's Mark Twain: A Biography (Harper, 1912, Vol. 2, page 724)----How true these words apply today.

Vic

I fail to see how withdrawing wording from a law that would withdraw authorization that he doesn't have anyway is in any way a "betrayal"

but go ahead, explain it to me.

As I read it, the article is saying House Democrats withdrew a measure that would require Congressional approval to ANY kind of strike on Iran. Now by taking away this requirement the author is arguing that the Dems are complicit in some move by Bush to strike at Iran. Can't say I'm that surprised, don't know of that many politicians who have any kind of spine whatsoever in standing up for whats right.

I don't feel particularly harmed by pelosi not pushing forward something she doesn't have the votes to pass.

This is called "go with what you know you can win"

I fail to see how withdrawing wording from a law that would withdraw authorization that he doesn't have anyway is in any way a "betrayal"

but go ahead, explain it to me.

As I read it, the article is saying House Democrats withdrew a measure that would require Congressional approval to ANY kind of strike on Iran. Now by taking away this requirement the author is arguing that the Dems are complicit in some move by Bush to strike at Iran. Can't say I'm that surprised, don't know of that many politicians who have any kind of spine whatsoever in standing up for whats right.

This is certainly an objective source.

I fail to see how withdrawing wording from a law that would withdraw authorization that he doesn't have anyway is in any way a "betrayal"

but go ahead, explain it to me.

Well, its obvious that the Democrat party is the party of liars, thereby betraying the trust of the people who elected them.

Well, its obvious that the Democrat party is the party of liars, thereby betraying the trust of the people who elected them.

you care to substantiate that? Unless, of course, you mean that the speaker, after realizing she doesn't have the votes, removes a piece from a bill in order to ensure the passage of the rest of the bill?

I don't feel particularly harmed by pelosi not pushing forward something she doesn't have the votes to pass.

This is called "go with what you know you can win"

Standing on principle should mean something and this is certainly something that shouldn't just be shrugged off. Even if it will fail it still sends a message that Dems will not just give up when they face opposition to sanity.

Standing on principle should mean something and this is certainly something that shouldn't just be shrugged off. Even if it will fail it still sends a message that Dems will not just give up when they face opposition to sanity.

Yes and no. The problem is it's a lose lose. This was not a single thing, it was one part of broader legislation.

Include it, and the whole thing goes down. Remove it, and the remainder has a good chance of passing.

Moreover, may I remind you, that bush has threatened to veto any bill that does what this would do. So even if she DID get it through, bush would kill it. ALL of it.

Now I ask you, what, in the end, is better, that the democratic party gets 4 out of the 5 things they wan, or that they "face opposition", and get nothing?

Personally, I prefer 4 out of 5.

you care to substantiate that? Unless, of course, you mean that the speaker, after realizing she doesn't have the votes, removes a piece from a bill in order to ensure the passage of the rest of the bill?

sarcasm.

I don't get it.

House Dems do something that seems to support the republican line and republicans call them traitors?

I don't get it.

House Dems do something that seems to support the republican line and republicans call them traitors?
It's actually liberals calling them traitors.

Yes and no. The problem is it's a lose lose. This was not a single thing, it was one part of broader legislation.

Include it, and the whole thing goes down. Remove it, and the remainder has a good chance of passing.

Moreover, may I remind you, that bush has threatened to veto any bill that does what this would do. So even if she DID get it through, bush would kill it. ALL of it.

Now I ask you, what, in the end, is better, that the democratic party gets 4 out of the 5 things they wan, or that they "face opposition", and get nothing?

Personally, I prefer 4 out of 5.

Ah, from what I read I thought this was being attached to a military spending bill. If Bush vetoed that I don't think many Dems would complain that much.

Well, its obvious that the Democrat party is the party of liars, thereby betraying the trust of the people who elected them.

It's also obvious that anyone who would call the Democratic party the Democrat party is a fool who is not to be trusted.

I don't get it.

House Dems do something that seems to support the republican line and republicans call them traitors?

www.antiwar.com is a libertarian site...

For some odd reason I could give two shits about this article. I think it's mostly the OP's attitude, to which I say a heart-felt fuck off. The dem congress has alrady done more things that actually will do me some good than the repos did in their entire twelve black years. Eat me if you think otherwise.

For some odd reason I could give two shits about this article. I think it's mostly the OP's attitude, to which I say a heart-felt fuck off. The dem congress has alrady done more things that actually will do me some good than the repos did in their entire twelve black years. Eat me if you think otherwise.

If it's any consolation, chum, I detest the Republicans much more than I do the Democrats.